MORGAN. — THE PREFACE OF VITRUVIUS. 153 



use in that sense; cf. Paul. Fest. 172, numen quasi nutus dei ac 

 potestas. In view of all this a writer of the earlier part of the Augustan 

 age may well have applied divina mens et numen to the all-powerful 

 ruler, and we need not here raise the question whether he 

 was already receiving divine worship. In another passage (233, 4) 

 Vitruvius uses the phrase divina mens of the intelligence of learned 

 men who could predict changes in the weather; he has it also four 

 times referring to "divine Providence" (138, 10; 184, 17; 218, 19; 

 231, 18) ; and the adjective divinus is applied to qualities of the gods 

 in two other places (185, 7; 245, 6). He does not use the word numen 

 except in our passage. 



imperator Caesar: Here two questions come up for consideration: 

 (1) whether Augustus, after he had received that name, was addressed 

 by any other ; (2) whether there is any English word by which impera- 

 tor in this passage can be properly translated. As for the first question, 

 it is generally believed that Vitruvius was aware that the name Augus- 

 tus 13 had been bestowed, and this leads Ussing 14 to assert that an in- 

 ferior like Vitruvius could not have avoided addressing him by that 



13 This belief rests on the usual interpretation of 107, 3, pronai aedis 

 Augusti, where the name seems to be recognized. But Sontheimer (see above, 

 note 1) holds that we have here merely the adjective augusti agreeing with 

 pronai, and that consequently the phrase means something like "a majestic 

 temple-pronaos." He thinks that there was no "temple" built at the rear 

 of this pronaos, but that the structure consisted of a pronaos only, containing 

 the tribunal. This theory is attractive, but I have not yet had time fully to 

 weigh it. Some objections, which may not be insuperable, readily suggest 

 themselves. But in this article I need only say that the disappearance of the 

 name Axigusti would strengthen my arguments in support of this preface as 

 an early production. As for the reading angusti, found in cod. S. (in general, 

 as Degering, Berl. Phil. Woch., 20, 9 ff. (1900), has shown, of the same inde- 

 pendent value as H and G), I cannot accept this reading in spite of Krohn 

 (Berl. Phil. Woch., 17, 781 (1897) ). It is improbable that Vitruvius should 

 have spoken of a temple here without naming the divinity to whom it was 

 dedicated. Cod. H, which I have seen, and Cod. G, of which I have a photo- 

 graph of this page, both have augusti. Cod. E does not contain the pas- 

 sage. The reading angusti is, however, found in several of the late manu- 

 scripts. In Florence I have seen it in Codd. Laur., 30, 11; 12; 13; also in 

 Cod. XVII, 5, of the Bibl. Naz. Centrale (though here the corrector gives 

 augusti) ; and in Venice in Cod. Marc. CCCCLXIII. Of these five manuscripts, 

 the first three belong to the class of H (lacuna in 2, 18) and the other two to 

 the class of G and S. On the other hand, Cod. Laur. 30, 10, which Degering 

 (ibid.) says comes directly from S, has augusti. It does indeed belong to the 

 class of G and S. In Rome I observed that Cod. Urb. 293, and also the Val- 

 licellanus (both of the G and S class) have augusti. 



14 Observations, 10. 



